It's been a couple weeks since the Pentagon defied a Congressional subpoena and refused to let the military's chief sexual assault expert testify at a hearing about sexual assault in the military.

Lawmakers on the House oversight committee were definitely not happy about it at the time.

Now the committee is stepping up its pressure on the Department of Defense to let Dr. Kaye Whitley, the director of the department's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, speak on Capitol Hill.

Yesteday, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates urging the department to comply with the Congressional subpoena issued for Whitley.

"We believe the Department's actions are completely without justification. The Department has provided no valid legal basis for its decision to prevent a witness from complying with a duly authorized congressional subpoena. The President has not asserted executive privilege over the testimony of Dr. Whitley. During the hearing, Subcommittee Chairman Tierney asked Mr. Dominguez whether there had been any assertion of executive privilege, and he testified that there had not been.

In addition, the committee also wants to know precisely why officials didn't want Whitley to testify. The letter to Gates also asked for all emails and other internal communications relating to the request for Whitley's testimony.

If the Pentagon does not comply, the committee threated to subpoena three high-ranking Pentagon officials to a hearing on Sept. 12 to testify about the Defense Department's legal rational for not allowing Whitley to testify.

Late Update: Gates has agreed to let Whitley testify

The Pentagon defied a Congressional subpoena yesterday by refusing to let the head of its sexual assault program testify at an oversight hearing about sexual assault in the military.

The House panel had issued a subpoena for Dr. Kaye Whitley, the director of the Defense Department's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.

But Pentagon officials ordered her not to testify and instead sent her supervisor, Michael Dominguez, a principal deputy undersecretary for defense, in her place.

Whitley's absence came on the same day a federal judge rejected the White House's claim to blanket immunity from Congressional oversight in an unrelated case.

Dominguez told the committee the Pentagon was not citing executive privileged but had simply instructed Whitley not to show up.

A Pentagon spokeswoman, Cynthia O. Smith, provided a statement today in response to questions about Whitley's defiance of the subpoena.

It is inappropriate to question Dr. Whitley about the program when Mr. Dominguez, the decision maker responsible for the program and for the program's results, is available to answer those questions.

Mr. Dominguez has full accountability and responsibility for the Sexual Assault Prevention Office and he has the full authority to discuss and answer all questions regarding the SAPRO and the Department's sexual assault policies. Dr. Whitley is responsible for implementing the policy....

Dr. Whitley has been on the Hill numerous times discussing the DoD's sexual assault program and she will continue to do so.

Lawmakers interpreted the move as an affront to Congressional authority and said they had specifically sought Whitley based on her knowledge of how the military's sexual assault programs actually work in practice.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) said to Dominguez at the hearing:

"What is, what it is you're trying to hide? She's the one in charge, let me speak, she's the one in charge of dealing with this problem. We wanted to hear from her. And despite a subpoena from a committee of Congress, you've been instructed by the secretary, undersecretary or deputy secretary in charge of legislative affairs not to allow her to come? ... I don't know who you think elected you to defy the Congress of the United States. We're an independent branch of government. ... this is an unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable position for the department to take and, uh, we are not going to let it stand."

Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) tersely dismissed Dominguez without asking him any questions about sexual assault.

"Well let me tell you something Mr. Dominguez, we decide who we want to have for witnesses at this hearing, we decide who, uh, the people that are going to give us factual testimony, the ones that we want to hear from when we are investigating or having a hearing. So for now Mr. Dominguez, you're dismissed."

Here is a clip of the entire nine-minute exchange between Dominguez and the lawmakers.

In June, the House panel asked Whitley to testify. When the Pentagon resisted, the committee issued a subpoena on Monday compelling her to attend the hearing yesterday, according to a statement today from Tierney, the chair of the oversight committee's National Security and Foreign Affairs subcommittee.

The hearing on sexual assault in the military came the same day as a
GAO report that found sexual assault in the military is probably underreported by half.

Some victims in the military do not report sexual assault because they fear "that nothing will be done; fear of ostracism, harassment, or ridicule; and concern that peers would gossip," according to the report.

Whitley's office is essentially a policy office and the bulk of the military sexual assault support programs are run by individual commanders. The Pentagon has resisted efforts to create an Office of the Victims' Advocate, which would oversee those efforts more independently.

An advocate for military victims of sexual assault tells TPMmuckraker that Whitley's office is under-resourced and reflects the Pentagon's lack of attention to sexual assault.

"We are concerned that it does not have all the tools and personnel it needs to go forward. And we're increasingly concerned that it is becoming politicized," said Anita Sanchez, communications director for the Miles Foundation.

Tierney said the committee is considering "ALL our options here in the face of this blatant disregard of a validly-issued subpoena," including seeking a contempt of Congress charge for Whitley, Dominguez or others.

From the Washington Post:

Auditors at an oversight agency of the Pentagon were pressured by supervisors to skew their reports on a major defense contractor's work, hiding wrongdoing and charges of overbilling, according to an 80-page report from the Government Accountability Office.

The Defense Contract Audit Agency, which is charged with overseeing contractors for the Defense Department, made an upfront agreement with "a major aerospace company" to limit the scope of work and basis for an audit, the report said.

When the contractor, who is not named in the report, objected to the draft findings of the DCAA audit, managers at the audit agency assigned a new supervisor to the case and threatened the senior auditor with personnel action if "he did not delete findings from the report and change the draft audit opinion to adequate," according to the GAO report.

Was the Air Force lobbying against the Pentagon on Capitol Hill?

This morning The Hill reports:

The Air Force has been ordered to investigate whether officials lobbied members of Congress improperly on a plan to merge military bases.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England asked the secretary of the Air Force --days before he was forced to resign -- to conduct an internal investigation after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) raised concerns over the Air Force's actions.

McCain, the GOP candidate for president, believes a provision in the 2008 emergency supplemental sponsored by Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the leading defense appropriators, was the result of lobbying by Air Force officials. Similar language is in the House bill.

The measure would allow a military service secretary or the head of another federal agency to delay or veto a decision by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) on "joint basing," an initiative that requires branches of the military to consolidate bases to save money.

What started as an FBI investigation into suspicious payments to an unconfirmed nominee for an Air Force position, has grown to include seven contracts between the Pentagon and two tax-exempt defense firms in Pennsylvania.

In 2007, the FBI began an internal investigation after an article in the Washington Post revealed that the Air Force had used Commonwealth Research Institute (CRI) to pay Charles Riechers, a senior civilian who was waiting on finalization of his White House nomination to principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition.

In October 2007, Riechers was found dead in an apparent suicide.

Since then, the scope of the federal investigation has broadened, and the FBI and Pentagon's Defense Criminal Investigative Service issued subpoenas in April to CRI and its parent company, Concurrent Technologies.

Those subpoenas are seeking information about at least seven contracts between the two non-profits and the Pentagon. From the Post:

Contracting documents obtained by The Post show that four of the contracts, worth up to $130 million, were awarded to Concurrent over several weeks in May and June 2002. Investigators also are examining a Concurrent deal in 2006 that was worth up to $45 million.

Investigators also want to know about two CRI deals, one from 2003 worth up to $10 million and another awarded without competition in 2006 that is worth up to $45 million.

All seven contracts were awarded by the Department of the Interior's National Business Center. The center has an interesting track record on non-competitive contracts:

The Pentagon has used that center for billions of dollars in purchases in recent years, though audits have found that the center often awarded contracts without competition or checks to determine whether prices were reasonable. One audit in late 2006 found that the center "routinely violated rules designed to protect U.S. Government interests."

Perhaps one more interesting twist to the story, involves the $226 million in earmarks that CRI and Concurrent have received in recent years, through Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).

The Defense Department wants more manpower to police itself.

The Defense Department's Inspector General says the massive growth in military spending during the past six years has far outpaced its ability to keep track of the money. A new report made public by the Project on Government Oversight outlines how the IG's office plans to grow -- by about 30 percent -- in the next seven years.

The rapid growth of the DoD budget since FY 2000 leaves the Department increasingly more vulnerable to the fraud, waste and abuse that undermines the Department's mission.

and

Furthermore, the demand for IG services to support the [Global War on Terror] and the ongoing operations in southwest Asia has forced us to adjust our priorities, resulting in gaps in coverage in important areas, such as major weapons acquisition, health care fraud, product substitution and defense intelligence agencies.

"Weapons acquisitions" is a pretty broad catagory and probably includes $531 million war ships, like the one the New York Times wrote about a few weeks ago. The Navy has been notoriously bad about cost overruns and runaway spending.

For years, the Pentagon's accounting procedures have been so shoddy that the Defense Department cannot even properly fail an audit. Trillions -- with a T -- of dollars are improperly accounted for. In fact, the Pentagon says there is no way it'll be able to handle a real audit until at least 2016.

Part of the problem may be that many retired military officials go on to work for defense contractors in later life.

The GAO has also been harping on the military's use of money

So it's no wonder that we've been hearing about absurd contracts like a 25-year-old Miami club goer who wins a $300 million contract to arm our allies in Afghanistan.

The Defense Department consumes about 19 percent of all federal spending.